Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 153 (Tuesday, October 20, 2015)

[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 153 (Tuesday, October 20, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7314-S7323]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STOP SANCTUARY POLICIES AND PROTECT AMERICANS ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2146, which the
clerk shall now report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 252, S. 2146, a bill to
hold sanctuary jurisdictions accountable for defying Federal
law, to increase penalties for individuals who illegally
reenter the United States after being removed, and to provide
liability protection for State and local law enforcement who
cooperate with Federal law enforcement and for other
purposes.

The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, the American people have demanded for years
that the Federal Government faithfully enforce our Nation's immigration
laws. Americans are tired of seeing their laws flouted and their
communities plagued by the horrible crimes that typically accompany
illegal immigration. But for too long, the pleas of the American people
on this issue have gone unheeded here in Washington.
See, when it comes to the problem of illegal immigration, the
political class and the business class--our Nation's elites--are of one
mind. They promise robust enforcement at some point in the future but
only on the condition that the American people accept a pathway to
citizenship now for the millions of illegal immigrants who are already
in this country.
Not wanting to be swindled, the American people wisely rejected this
deal, which the Washington class calls ``comprehensive immigration
reform.'' Of course, the elites don't like this one bit. So instead,
they have taken matters into their own hands. They bend or ignore the
law to make it more difficult for immigration enforcement officers to
do their job.
We have seen this repeatedly with the Obama administration. President
Obama has illegally granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants
with no statutory authorization whatsoever, even though, before his
reelection, the President assured the American people he couldn't do so
without an act of Congress. As President Obama said, when asked whether
he could grant amnesty, ``I am not an emperor.''

[[Page S7315]]

Well, I agree with President Obama. But yet, just a few months after
saying he couldn't do this because he was not an emperor, apparently he
discovered he was an emperor, because he did precisely what he
acknowledged he lacked the constitutional authority to do.
Although the administration today claims to be focusing its resources
on deporting illegal immigrants with criminal records, it has adopted a
policy where many illegal immigrants that the administration deems to
be low-priority criminals will not be detained and deported but will be
released back into our communities.
Remarkably, in the year 2013 the Obama administration released from
detention roughly 36,000 convicted criminal aliens who were actually
awaiting the outcome of deportation proceedings. These criminal aliens
were responsible for 193 homicide convictions. They were responsible
for 426 sexual assault convictions, 303 kidnapping convictions, 1,075
aggravated assault convictions, and 16,070 drunk driving convictions.
All of this was on top of the additional 68,000 illegal immigrants with
criminal convictions that the Federal Government encountered in 2013
but never took into custody for deportation. Dwell on those numbers for
a moment.
In 1 year, the Obama administration releases over 104,000 criminal
illegal aliens, people who have come into this country illegally who
have additional criminal convictions--murderers, rapists, thieves,
drunk drivers.
One wonders what the administration says to the mother of a child
lost to a murderer released by the Obama administration because they
will not enforce the laws. One wonders what the Obama administration
says to the child of a man killed by a drunk driver released by the
Obama administration because they will not enforce our immigration
laws.
While this administration's refusal to enforce the laws is bad
enough, the scandalously poor enforcement of our immigration laws is
made much, much worse by the lawless actions of the roughly 340 so-
called sanctuary jurisdictions across the country. Although these
jurisdictions are more than happy--eager, even--to take Federal
taxpayer dollars, they go out of their way to obstruct and impede
Federal immigration enforcement by adopting policies that prohibit
their law enforcement officers from cooperating with Federal officers.
Some of the jurisdictions even refuse to honor requests from the
Federal Government to temporarily hold a criminal alien until Federal
officers can take custody of the individual. Not only are these
sanctuary policies an affront to the rule of law, but they are
extremely dangerous.
According to a recent study by the Center for Immigration Studies,
between January 1 and September 30, 2014--just a 9-month period--
sanctuary jurisdictions released 9,295 alien offenders who the Federal
Government was seeking to deport. That is roughly 1,000 offenders a
month that sanctuary jurisdictions released to the people. Now, of
those 9,295, 62 percent had prior criminal histories or other public
safety issues. Amazingly, to underscore just how dangerous this is to
the citizenry, 2,320 of those criminal offenders were rearrested within
the 9-month period for committing new crimes after they had already
been released by the sanctuary jurisdiction. If that doesn't embody
lawlessness, it is difficult to imagine what does--jurisdictions that
are releasing over and over criminal illegal aliens, many of them
violent criminal illegal aliens, and exposing the citizens who live at
home to additional public safety risk, to additional terrorist risk.
This same study found that the Federal Government was unable to
reapprehend the vast majority of the alien offenders released by the
sanctuary jurisdictions--69 percent as of last year. Even Homeland
Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has admitted that these sanctuary
policies are ``unacceptable.'' ``It is counterproductive to public
safety,'' he said, ``to have this level of resistance to working with
our immigration enforcement personnel.''
I am thrilled to hear the Secretary of Homeland Security say so out
loud. I assume that means that the Obama administration will be
supporting the legislation before this body. After all, the Secretary
of Homeland Security says it is ``unacceptable,'' and that ``it is
counterproductive to public safety.'' Yet, sadly, the Obama
administration is not supporting the legislation before this body.
Indeed, it has taken the tragic and terrible death of Kate Steinle to
galvanize action here in Washington. Kate died in the arms of her
father on a San Francisco pier after being fatally shot by an illegal
alien who had several felony convictions and had been deported from the
United States multiple times. Her death is heartbreaking.
In the Senate Judiciary Committee we had the opportunity to hear from
Kate Steinle's family. The heartbreak is even more appalling because
Kate's killer had been released from custody and not turned over to the
Federal Government to be deported because of San Francisco's sanctuary
policy.
The city of San Francisco is proudly a sanctuary city. They say to
illegal immigrants across the country and across the world: Come to San
Francisco. We will protect you from Federal immigration laws. We, the
elected democratic leaders of this city, welcome illegal immigrants,
including violent criminal illegal immigrants such as the murderer who
took Kate Steinle's life.
These policies are inexcusable. They are a threat to the public
safety of the American people, and they need to end. That is why I am
proud to be one of the original cosponsors of the Stop Sanctuary
Policies and Protect Americans Act, which strips certain Federal funds,
especially community development block grants, from jurisdictions that
maintain these lawless policies. If these jurisdictions insist on
making it more difficult to remove criminal aliens from our
communities, then these Federal dollars should go instead to
jurisdictions that will actually cooperate with the Federal Government,
that are willing to enforce the law rather than aid and abet the
criminals. It makes no sense to continue sending Federal money to local
governments that intentionally make it more difficult and costly for
the Federal Government to do its job.
But this bill doesn't just address sanctuary jurisdictions. It also
addresses the problem of illegal immigrants who, like Kate Steinle's
killer, are deported but illegally reenter the country, which is a
felony. This class of illegal aliens has a special disregard and
disdain for our Nation's laws, and too often these offenders also have
serious rap sheets.

In 2012, just over a quarter of the illegal aliens apprehended by
Border Patrol had prior deportation orders. That is an astounding
99,420 illegal aliens. Of the illegal reentry offenders who were
actually prosecuted in fiscal year 2014--that is just 16,556
offenders--a fraction of those committed a felony. The majority of
those who were prosecuted had extensive or recent criminal histories,
and many were dangerous criminals. Even though the majority of
offenders had serious criminal records, the average prison sentence was
just 17 months, down from an average of 22 months in 2008.
In fact, more than a quarter of illegal reentry offenders received a
sentence below the guidelines range because the government sponsored
the low sentence. Because we are failing to adequately deter illegal
aliens who have already been deported from illegally reentering the
country, I introduced Kate's Law in the Senate.
I wish to thank Senators Vitter and Grassley for working with me to
incorporate elements of Kate's Law into this bill. I also wish to
recognize and thank all of the original cosponsors who joined me in
this bill--Senators Barrasso, Cornyn, Isakson, Johnson, Perdue, Rubio,
Sullivan, and Toomey.
Because of this bill, any illegal alien who illegally reenters the
United States and has a prior aggravated felony conviction or two prior
illegal reentry convictions will face a mandatory sentence of 5 years
in prison. We must send the message that defiance of our laws will no
longer be tolerated, whether it is by the sanctuary cities themselves
or by the illegal reentry offenders who they harbor.
The problem of illegal immigration in this country will never be
solved until we demonstrate to the American people that we are serious
about securing the border and enforcing our immigration laws and until
we have a President who is willing to and, in fact, committed to
actually enforcing the laws and securing the borders.

[[Page S7316]]

This bill is just a small step, but at least it is a step in the
right direction. Yet there will be two consequences from the vote this
afternoon. First, it will be an opportunity for our friends on the
Democratic side of the aisle to declare to the country on whose side
they stand.
When they are campaigning for reelection, more than a few Democratic
Senators tell the voters they support securing the borders. More than a
few Democratic Senators tell the voters: Of course we shouldn't be
releasing criminal illegal aliens. More than a few Democratic Senators
claim to have no responsibility for the 104,000 criminal illegal aliens
released by the Obama administration in the year 2013.
These Senators claim to have no responsibility for the murder of Kate
Steinle, invited to San Francisco by that city's sanctuary city policy.
This vote today will be a moment of clarity. No Democratic Senator will
be able to go and tell his or her constituents: I oppose sanctuary
cities. I support securing the border if they vote today in favor of
sending Federal taxpayer funds to subsidize the lawlessness of
sanctuary cities.
The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from families who had
lost loved ones to violent criminal illegal aliens--one after the other
after the other. We heard about children who were sexually abused and
murdered by violent illegal aliens. We heard from family members who
have lost loved ones to drunk drivers illegally in this country.
During the hearing, I asked the senior Obama administration official
for immigration enforcement how she could look into the eyes of those
family members and justify releasing murderers, rapists, and drunk
drivers over and over and over again.
Indeed, at that hearing I asked the head of immigration enforcement
for the Obama administration: How many murderers did the Obama
administration release this week? Her answer: I don't know. I asked
her: How many rapists did the Obama administration release this week?
Her answer: I don't know. How many drunk drivers? I don't know.
None of us should be satisfied with that answer or with a President
and administration that refuse to enforce the laws and are willfully
and repeatedly releasing violent criminal illegal aliens into our
communities and endangering the lives of our families and children.
This vote today is a simple decision for every Democratic Senator:
With whom do you stand? Do you stand with the violent criminal illegal
aliens who are being released over and over again? Because mind you, a
vote no is to say the next time the next murderer--like Kate Steinle's
murderer--comes in, we should not enforce the laws, and we shouldn't
have a mandatory 5-year prison sentence. Instead, we should continue
sanctuary cities that welcome and embrace him until perhaps it is our
family members who lose their lives.
It is my hope that in this moment of clarity the Democratic members
of this body will decide they stand with the American people and not
with the violent criminal illegal aliens.

It is worth noting, by the way, the standard rhetorical device that
so many Democratic Senators use is to say: Well, not all immigrants are
criminals. Well, of course they are not. I am the son of an immigrant
who came legally to this country 58 years ago. We are a nation of
immigrants, of men and women fleeing oppression and seeking freedom,
but this bill doesn't deal with all immigrants. It deals with one
specific subset of immigrants: criminal illegal aliens. It deals with
those who come to this country illegally and also have additional
criminal convictions, whether it is homicide, sexual assault,
kidnapping, battery, or drunk driving. If it is the Democrats' position
for partisan reasons that they would rather stand with violent criminal
illegal aliens, that is a sad testament on where one of the two major
political parties in this country stands today. I suspect the voters
who elect them would be more than a little surprised at how that jibes
with the rhetoric they use on the campaign trail.
If, as many observers predict, Democratic Senators choose to value
partisan loyalty to the Obama White House over protecting the lives of
the children who will be murdered by violent criminal illegal aliens in
sanctuary cities if this body does not act, and if they vote on a
party-line vote, as many observers have predicted, that will provide a
moment of clarity. I will also suggest that it underscores the need for
Republican leadership to bring this issue up again--and not in the
context where Democrats can blithely block it and obstruct any
meaningful reforms to protect our safety, secure the border, enforce
the law, and stop violent illegal criminal aliens from threatening our
safety--in the context of a must-pass bill and attach it to legislation
that will actually pass in law.
I am very glad we are voting on this bill this week. That is a good
and positive step. It is one of the few things in the last 10 months we
have voted on that actually responds to the concerns of the men and
women who elected us.
I salute leadership for bringing up this vote, but if a party-line
vote blocks it, then the next step is not simply to have a vote. The
next step is to attach this legislation to must-pass legislation and to
actually fix the problem. Leadership loves to speak of what they call
governing, and in Washington governing is always set at least an octave
lower. Well, when it comes to stopping sanctuary cities and protecting
our safety, we need some governing. We need to actually fix the problem
rather than have a show vote.
My first entreaty is to my Democratic friends across the aisle.
Regardless of areas where we differ on partisan politics, this should
be an easy vote. Do you stand with the men and women of your State or
do you stand with violent criminal illegal aliens? We will find out in
just a couple of hours.
My second entreaty is to Republican leadership. If Democrats are
partisans first rather than protecting the men and women they
represent, then it is up to Republican leadership to attach this to a
must-pass bill and actually pass it into law and solve the problem--not
to talk about it, but to do it. It is my hope that is what all of us do
together.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to speak out against a bill
that is misguided, stands against everything that America represents,
and suggests that it will protect Americans when, in fact, it will
protect Americans less.
From our founding, our principles have been guided by core values of
equality, fairness, freedom, and tolerance, and in turn, we have
honored the many ways that immigrants have contributed to this country
since its inception. Yet the other side of the aisle is once again
engaged in a stubborn, relentless, and shameful assault against
immigrants.
As the son of immigrants myself, I find it hard not to take offense
at the anti-immigrant rhetoric we are hearing from their Presidential
candidates. It is unacceptable, deplorable, and should be renounced by
every American. We are witnessing the most overtly nativist, xenophobic
campaign in modern U.S. history. We have hit a new low with the
extraordinarily hateful rhetoric that diminishes immigrants'
contributions to American history and particularly demonizes the Latino
community by labeling Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals.
The Republican leading in the polls actually launched his
Presidential candidacy by attacking immigrants, saying:

They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're
rapists.

Please spare me. It is senseless and false. Yet some of my Senate
colleagues have decided to jump on the GOP's fearmongering bandwagon,
seeking to blindly stamp millions of hard-working, law-abiding
immigrant families as criminals and rapists, and that is why we are
here today. That anti-immigrant rhetoric has made its way to the Senate
floor courtesy of Donald Trump and some Republicans eager to capitalize
on this rhetoric for their own political gain.
This is nothing more than another offensive anti-immigrant bill,
another effort to demonize those who risk everything for a better life
for themselves and their children, those who were left with no choice
but to flee persecution and violence or else face a certain death. That
is what we are debating here today. Those are the individuals this
legislation seeks to brand as criminals.

[[Page S7317]]

This bill does nothing more than instigate fear and divide our
Nation. Supporters of this bill may say that it is in response to a
tragedy such as what happened in San Francisco, and what happened in
San Francisco was a tragedy. Such tragedies will not be prevented by
this legislation but by real immigration reform. I am happy to have
that debate--a real debate, an honest and compassionate debate, a
debate the country deserves--but that is not what is happening in this
bill.
The title of the bill asserts that it will protect Americans. Well,
to be clear, this bill will not protect Americans because it second
guesses decisions made by local law enforcement around the country
about how to best police their own communities and ensure public
safety.
What is worse, this bill mandates local law enforcement to take on
Federal immigration enforcement duties by threatening to strip away
funding from as many as 300 local jurisdictions, from programs such as
the community development block grant, community-oriented policing
services, and the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. These are
programs that directly help our towns and communities. The CDBG Program
grows local economies and improves the quality of life for families. It
has assisted hundreds of millions of people with low and moderate
incomes, stabilized neighborhoods, provided affordable housing, and
improved the safety and quality of life of American citizens. The Cops
on the Beat grant funds salaries and benefits for police officers who
serve us every day by keeping our communities safe, and they deserve
better than being dragged into partisan politics.
My colleague from Louisiana seeks to strip funding from localities
that undertake the balancing of public safety considerations and refuse
to act as Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. But this bill
goes even further than that. This bill isn't content with taking
discretion away from local communities; it takes it away from the
judicial branch. It adds new mandatory minimums when, as a nation, we
are trying to move away from that approach. The new mandatory minimum
sentences would have a crippling financial impact with no evidence that
they would actually deter future violations of the law. They could cost
American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. I think that
deserves a serious, thoughtful debate in the Judiciary Committee, with
expert testimony on whether this really makes us safer or whether we
are throwing away hard-earned taxpayer dollars. But we won't even get
that debate because this bill was fast-tracked as a Republican
priority, and it didn't even go through the regular committee process.
The U.S. Senate cannot nurture an environment that demonizes and
dehumanizes Latinos and the entire immigrant community. By threatening
to strip CDBG funding from cities, Senate Republicans are saying that
it is OK to withhold funding from economically vulnerable American
citizens, senior citizens, veterans, and children to promote their
anti-immigrant agenda and that it is OK to cut COPS funding, which has
long promoted public safety through community policing.
A one-size-fits-all approach that punishes State and local law
enforcement agencies that engage in well-established community policing
practices just doesn't make sense. Local communities and local law
enforcement are better judges than Congress of what keeps their
communities safe. Police need cooperation from the community to do
their jobs. That is why over the past several years hundreds of
localities across our Nation, with the support of some of the toughest
police chiefs and sheriffs, have limited their involvement in Federal
immigration enforcement out of concerns for community safety and
violations of the Fourth Amendment. They need witnesses and victims to
be able to come forward without fear of recrimination because of their
immigrant status, and fear of deportation should never be a barrier to
reporting crime or seeking help from the police. This fear undermines
trust between law enforcement and the communities they protect and
creates a chilling effect.
These policies were put in place because local jurisdictions don't
want to do ICE's job for them. Effective policing cannot be achieved by
forcing an unwanted role upon the police by threat of sanctions or
withholding assistance, especially at a time when law enforcement
agencies are strengthening police-community relations.
Furthermore, why do my Republican colleagues believe they know better
than the local towns and citizens who live this day in and day out?
They talk endlessly about decentralizing government, giving the power
back to local communities, but not this time. It is no wonder that this
bill is opposed by law enforcement, including the Fraternal Order of
Police, the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, the U.S. Conference
of Mayors, immigrant and Latino rights organizations, faith groups, and
domestic violence groups, among others.
This bill is not a real solution to our broken immigration system.
The bottom line is that we need comprehensive immigration reform. We
passed bipartisan legislation in 2013, but we haven't had a real
discussion in Congress for over 2 years.
A recent Pew poll found that 74 percent of Americans overall said
that undocumented immigrants should be given a pathway to stay legally.
That included 66 percent of Republicans, 74 percent of Independents,
and 80 percent of Democrats who support a pathway to legal status for
undocumented immigrants. This bipartisan support is not new.
Comprehensive immigration reform, previously passed in the Senate,
brought millions of people out of the shadows who had to prove their
identity, pass a criminal background check, pay taxes, and provide an
earned path to citizenship so ICE could focus on the people who were
true public safety threats. The bill also increased penalties for
repeat border crossers. It included $46 billion in new resources,
including no fewer than 38,000 trained, full-time, active Border Patrol
agents deployed and stationed along the southern border. It increased
the real GDP of our country by more than 3 percent in 2023 and 5.4
percent in 2033--an increase of roughly $700 billion in the first 10
years and $1.4 trillion in the second 10. It would have reduced the
Federal deficit by $197 billion over the next decade and by another
$700 billion in the following. That is almost $1 trillion in deficit
spending reductions by giving 11 million people a pathway to
citizenship. That was a real solution. That is the type of reform we
need. That, in fact, is the opportunity that existed. Unfortunately,
the other body, the House of Representatives, did not even have a vote.
To the extent that Americans are less safe, it is because of their
inaction that we are less safe today.
Tragedies should not be used to scapegoat immigrants. They should not
be used to erode trust between law enforcement and our communities. We
cannot let fear drive our policymaking.
So let's actively and collectively resist the demagoguery that
threatens to shape American policymaking for the worse. I believe a
vote to proceed is a vote against the Latino and immigrant communities
of our country, and I hope that on a bipartisan basis we can reject it.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to discuss sanctuary cities.
Two women, Kate Steinle and Marilyn Pharis, were killed in California
over the summer, both allegedly by undocumented individuals with
criminal records.
The suspect in each case had recently been released from local
custody without notice to Federal immigration officials, which could
have resulted in those individuals being removed from the country
instead of being released.
I believe these murders could have been prevented if there were open
channels of communication between local law enforcement and Federal
immigration authorities about dangerous individuals.
In both cases, those lines of communication broke down, and two women
died.
In my view, local law enforcement agencies should be required to
notify Federal authorities--if such notification is requested--that
they plan to release a dangerous individual, such as a convicted felon.
This is a reasonable solution that would target those criminals who
shouldn't be released back onto the street.

[[Page S7318]]

While I do support mandatory communication between local, State, and
Federal officials, I do not support the bill before us today.
The bill we will soon be voting on would target all undocumented
immigrants for deportation.
It would divert already stretched local law enforcement resources
away from dangerous criminals and from policing in their own
communities. I do not support such an action.
This bill also includes a detention requirement that goes beyond
dangerous individuals--it would cover any immigrant sought to be
detained.
This is a standard that could be abused in another administration,
and it is potentially a huge unfunded mandate to impose on States and
localities.
In addition to being an unfunded mandate, the bill would make drastic
cuts to police departments, sheriffs departments, and local community
programs.
Specifically it would cut the COPS Hiring Program; the State Criminal
Alien Assistance Program, known as SCAAP; and the Community Development
Block Grant Program.
Last year, 21 California jurisdictions received $13.2 million in COPS
hiring grants to hire police officers.
California also received $57 million in SCAAP funds to help cover
costs of holding undocumented immigrants.
And California communities received $356.9 million under the
Community Development Block Grant Program.
As a former mayor, I know how important these funds are to local
communities.
The bill would also impose lengthy Federal prison sentences on all
undocumented immigrants.
This would include mothers crossing the border to see their children.
It would include agricultural workers who are vital to California's
economy.
It would include other essentially innocent individuals who simply
want to make a better life for themselves and their families.
In my view, this goes much too far, and I cannot support it.
I would, however, like to talk further about the murders of Kate
Steinle and Marilyn Pharis and what I believe should be done to protect
public safety.
Kate Steinle, a 32-year-old woman, was shot and killed in July while
walking along San Francisco's Pier 14 with her father.
The suspected shooter, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, had a long
criminal record.
He had seven felony convictions, including one for possession of
heroin and another for manufacturing narcotics.
He had also been removed from the country five times.
The chain of events that led to Kate's murder began on March 23, when
San Francisco County Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi requested that Lopez-
Sanchez be transferred from Federal prison to San Francisco.
The sheriff's request was based on a 20-year-old marijuana possession
warrant.
On March 26, Lopez-Sanchez was booked into San Francisco County jail.
However, the 20-year-old marijuana charge was quickly dropped, and
Lopez-Sanchez was later released.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement had asked Sheriff Mirkarimi to
let the agency know when Lopez-Sanchez would be released. That did not
happen.
A simple phone call would have been enough, but Sheriff Mirkarimi
failed to notify Federal officials.
In July, only a few months after his release, Lopez-Sanchez shot and
killed Kate Steinle.
In fact, not only did the sheriff fail to notify, the failure was a
consequence of a deliberate policy.
Just weeks before his office requested the transfer of Lopez-Sanchez,
the sheriff adopted a policy forbidding his own deputies from notifying
immigration officials.
The policy specifically states that sheriff department staff shall
not provide release dates or times to immigration authorities.
Let me be clear: this isn't State law or even San Francisco law. This
is the sheriff's own policy.
I believe this policy is wrong, and I have called on the sheriff to
change it. San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee has made the same request.
On July 24, Marilyn Pharis was brutally attacked with a hammer and
sexually assaulted in her home by two suspects.
The 64-year-old Air Force veteran died in the hospital from her
injuries a week later.
One of the individuals charged with this heinous crime is a 20-year-
old U.S. citizen named Jose Fernando Villagomez.
The other is a 29-year-old undocumented immigrant named Victor
Aureliano Martinez Ramirez.
According to ICE, Martinez Ramirez was arrested in May 2014, but he
had no prior felony convictions or deportations.
He was subject to what is called an ICE detainer request, asking the
local jurisdiction to hold him until ICE could pick him up.
The local jurisdiction did not hold the suspect, nor did they notify
ICE of his release.
In the ensuing months, Martinez Ramirez accumulated multiple
misdemeanor convictions, including possession of methamphetamine and
battery.
One of his convictions included a protection order requiring him to
stay away from a particular individual.
On July 20, he pleaded guilty to additional misdemeanor charges of
possessing a dagger and drug paraphernalia.
He was sentenced to 30 days, but that wasn't to begin until October
31. He was released from custody and, 4 days later, allegedly attacked,
raped, and killed Marilyn Pharis in her own home.
I believe these two cases demonstrate the need for better
communication between local, State, and Federal authorities before a
dangerous individual with a criminal record is released.
When our committee was set to markup an earlier bill from Senator
Vitter, I prepared a simple amendment to ensure such communication
happens. That markup was cancelled.
I'd like to describe this approach now.
First, it would require notification by a State or local agency of
the impending release of certain dangerous individuals, if ICE requests
such notification.
It would apply to individuals where there is probable cause to
believe they are aliens who are removable from the country and who pose
a threat to the community.
Immigration offenses would be covered only if the individual had
actually received more than 1 year in prison, which would happen for a
person with a significant criminal history.
The amendment I prepared would not include harmful cuts to law
enforcement and community programs, which I believe are unnecessary and
unwise.
The legal precedents from the Supreme Court show that Congress can
impose a reporting requirement on a State or local government, without
threatening harmful funding cuts.
That is the approach I would take--I believe it would protect public
safety without harming otherwise law-abiding immigrants or State or
local law enforcement.
Before I conclude, I'd like to remind my colleagues that this is not
a choice between being pro-immigrant or pro-criminal.
I am pro-immigrant. Immigrants make a tremendous contribution to this
country and to my State.
They work some of the most difficult jobs, from agriculture to
construction to hospitality.
They are part of the fabric of our country.
I, myself, am the daughter of an immigrant.
I strongly support comprehensive immigration reform, which I think is
the only long-term solution to many of these problems.
I also support the President's executive actions to eliminate the
threat of deportation for young people who have been raised here, as
well as the parents of American citizens.
And I agree with immigrant advocates who want to prevent families
from being separated because of a minor infraction like a broken
taillight.
The position I support strikes a balance.
It would keep dangerous individuals off the street, while protecting
otherwise law-abiding immigrants who are just here to work and provide
their children with a better future.

[[Page S7319]]

I believe the deaths of Kate Steinle and Marilyn Pharis could have
been prevented.
I believe we can and should fix the problems that led to their deaths
by requiring that local officials notify Federal officials before they
release dangerous criminals, if asked to do so.
I oppose Senator Vitter's bill, which would sweep up otherwise law-
abiding immigrants and divert resources away from where they are most
needed.
We should focus our efforts on dangerous criminals, and I hope that
when we again take up comprehensive immigration reform, that is what
happens.
I thank the Chair.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the death of Kate Steinle in San Francisco
by a convicted felon who illegally crossed the border multiple times
was horrific. It left a family heartbroken and shocked our community,
our State, and our Nation.
We cannot allow a tragedy like this to happen again.
We should never give sanctuary to serious and violent felons, but
this Republican bill is not the answer.
Getting rid of sanctuary cities will not reduce crime--in fact, it
will only increase crime and make us less safe.
That is why this bill is opposed by law enforcement, immigrant rights
organizations, faith groups, domestic violence groups, labor unions,
housing and community development organizations, mayors of California's
biggest cities, and the National League of Cities--as well as many
others.
The truth is that sanctuary cities keep our neighborhoods safe by
promoting trust and cooperation between police officers and immigrant
communities. And that trust is essential to protecting all of us.
Let me give a quick example.
A few years ago in Seattle, more than two dozen Asian women were
sexually assaulted in the same neighborhood over a 2-year period.
Because of the strong relationship between police and the community--
a community where police are generally prohibited from asking about
immigration status--many of the immigrant victims were willing to come
forward and share information with the police, which led to the
perpetrator's arrest.
Don't just take my word for it--listen to what law enforcement in our
communities say about the importance of sanctuary city policies.
As former San Jose Police Chief Rob Davis said: ``We have been
fortunate enough to solve some terrible cases because of the
willingness of illegal immigrants to step forward, and if they saw us
as part of the immigration services, I just don't know if they'd do
that anymore.''
As Ohio Chief of Police Richard Biehl explained: ``Sanctuary policies
and practices are not designed to harbor criminals. On the contrary,
they exist to support community policing, ensuring that the community
at large--including immigrant communities--trusts State and local law
enforcement and feels secure in reporting criminal conduct.''
Ending sanctuary policies would keep the voices of immigrant victims
and witnesses quiet.
That means crimes would go unreported, cases would go unsolved, and
dangerous criminals would go unpunished.
Ending these policies would actually give sanctuary to dangerous
criminals because, without the help of immigrant communities, these
violent offenders will continue to threaten our safety.
We know this because there are many places in this country where
immigrants do not feel safe coming forward.
As Texas Sheriff Lupe Valdez said: ``A lot of undocumented
individuals came from areas where they can't trust the police. The
uniform has pushed them into the shadows. Good law enforcement cannot
be carried out this way.''
Just listen to some of the immigrants who were too terrified to come
forward and report horrific crimes.
Take it from Maria, an immigrant survivor of serious domestic
violence, who fled from Texas to Indiana, where her abuser tracked her
down.
When he came to her house at midnight, she was too afraid to call
911--fearing she could be deported--so she called her lawyer over and
over. Because it was the middle of the night, her attorney was not at
work and came in the next morning to a series of frantic messages left
on her voicemail.
Ultimately, Maria's abuser was not able to get into the house, but
her life was in danger because she thought that law enforcement wasn't
a safe option.
Take it from Cecilia, a young Guatemalan girl in Colorado.
Cecilia was sexually abused by a family friend at the age of 5. Her
parents, undocumented immigrants, learned about the abuse, but they
were terrified to report the crime to the police because they were told
by family and friends that the police could not be trusted. They were
told that, if they came forward, they would be reported to immigration
and deported.
A year later, the same perpetrator sexually abused another young
child. It wasn't until the father of that child contacted Cecilia's
parents that they decided to go to the police together, and the
perpetrator was caught and prosecuted.
But because of their initial fear of reporting the crime, another
child was harmed.
So why would we pass a bill that could discourage victims or
witnesses from coming forward for help?
Why would we pass a bill that would make it harder for law
enforcement to solve crimes and keep our communities safe?
This Republican bill is also dangerous because it would cut off COPS
grants that help communities protect residents by hiring officers.
We should be doing everything we can to help local police
departments--not take away their ability to put officers on the street.
Republicans also want to punish communities by taking away their
community development block grants, which would hurt thousands of
working families who rely on these funds for safe, affordable housing
and other critical services.
This GOP bill would also take away SCAAP funding, which reimburses
State and local governments for the costs of incarcerating undocumented
immigrants. This funding has been repeatedly slashed, and it has never
been enough--especially in my State of California, which spends nearly
$1 billion a year on these incarceration costs.
These cuts would have devastating impact on States and local
communities.
Now, there are some California communities reviewing their specific
policies and forging cooperation agreements with Federal immigration
officials--and I think that's a good thing.
I believe that State and local officials should examine their
policies to ensure that they are preserving the trust that law
enforcement has built in our communities, while keeping serious and
violent felons off our streets.
Unfortunately, this Republican bill would do the exact opposite--it
would undermine the trust that has been developed between police and
immigrant communities, and it would set back efforts to solve cases and
put dangerous criminals behind bars.
The real question is: Why are we even considering this bill?
Why isn't Congress passing the bipartisan comprehensive immigration
reform bill that the Senate passed more than 2 years ago?
That bipartisan bill would make our country safer by adding 20,000
more Border Patrol agents; increasing surveillance; and hiring
additional prosecutors and judges to boost prosecutions of illegal
border crossings.
The measure would also make clear that serious or violent felons will
never get a pathway to citizenship or legal status.
And the bill would bring families out of the shadows--so that they
don't fear being deported or separated from their families . . . so
they feel comfortable cooperating with police and reporting crimes in
their communities.
Let's make our communities safer by passing real immigration reform
and by defeating this misguided Republican bill.
I urge my colleagues to vote no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). The Senator from New York.

Donnelly Confirmation

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am going to discuss the bill on the
floor in a minute, but first I wish to take a moment to congratulate
the newly confirmed district judge for the Eastern District of New
York, Ann Donnelly. She just passed the Senate with a vote of 95 to 2--
nearly unanimous and deservedly so.

[[Page S7320]]

There are few more qualified for a Federal judgeship than Ann
Donnelly. She has dedicated her life to public service, having spent a
quarter decade as a prosecutor in the prestigious New York County
District Attorney's Office under Bob Morgenthau. She accumulated a host
of awards there and rose through the leadership ranks of the office.
Then, in 2009, she became a State court judge in New York, hearing a
wide variety of cases. She has a stellar academic record, having
graduated from the University of Michigan and Ohio State University
School of Law.
I could tick off more of her accomplishments, and the list would be
long, but Judge Donnelly is more than a brilliant resume. I know her
well. She is at her core a kind, thoughtful, and compassionate person.
Anyone who knows her or who has interacted with her even briefly knows
she is fair, open-minded, and has exactly the kind of temperament that
will make her an exceptional Federal judge.
I congratulate Ann Donnelly and her family--particularly her mother--
on her confirmation. I know her mother is so proud of her. It is a
milestone day in her career and a bright day for the Eastern District
of New York.
Mr. President, today the Senate will turn its attention to a divisive
immigration bill that has no hope of becoming law. Today's vote won't
be on a comprehensive bill, as was the one the Senate passed 2 years
ago--one that secures our borders, provides a jolt to the economy,
provides a pathway to citizenship for hard-working, law-abiding
immigrants who pay their taxes to get right with the law.
I want to be clear with the American people on this. Today's vote is
nothing but a political show vote. Senator Vitter knows his bill has no
chance of passing the Senate or being signed into law. As stated by my
friend the Republican junior Senator from Nevada--here is what he said:
``You know we have votes because people are running for president, so I
am not surprised we have votes because people are running for
governor.'' No other sentence sums it up better as to what a waste of
time this is, and that is to say nothing about the substance of the
bill, which has drawn opposition from nearly every important interest
group. A broad coalition of major law enforcement groups, faith groups,
labor, cities, elected officials, housing advocates, and immigrant
rights groups oppose this bill. I suspect there are Members of the
Republican caucus who oppose many parts of it. Why? Because it is a
bill that would jeopardize hundreds of millions of dollars in the name
of punishing immigrants and cities where they live.
This bill would strip away community development block grants,
community COPS grants to hire more cops, and SCAAP, a proposal that
funds jurisdictions that are doing what many on the other side want
them to do by locking up unauthorized immigrants who commit crimes.
Everyone believes that if a person commits a serious crime unrelated to
being an immigrant--not like crossing the border or forging a document
but a serious crime--law enforcement should be required to cooperate
and those folks should be deported, plain and simple. But in the name
of trying to help law enforcement, this bill hurts law enforcement
because it will take away so many of the grants law enforcement needs.
It will take away the grants that help create a way of incarcerating
those who commit serious crimes.
All of these cuts would come while also astronomically increasing the
size of prison population and related costs, without decreasing the
deficit by a single dime. This will put a huge burden on our State and
local taxpayers. Their taxes would go way up if this bill were passed
into law and implemented.
To be clear, the death of Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco was
tragic. It never should have happened. I mourn not only her family but
the family of any American killed in a senseless act of gun violence.
For people like the killer of Ms. Steinle, law enforcement should
cooperate with the Federal authorities and deport those folks.
This is not the way to exercise better law enforcement. Punishing
cities and communities and yanking Federal funding from cops will not
get us to a better immigration system or safeguard our communities.
The bill we passed in 2013, which I was proud to author with a number
of Democratic and Republican colleagues, is the opposite of this bill
in every way. Our bill was supported by a broad coalition of groups,
from business, labor, faith communities, immigrant communities, and law
enforcement. Our bill paid for itself and went on to decrease the
deficit by $160 billion over 10 years and to increase GDP by 3.3
percent. Our bill secured the border--this bill doesn't do that--not
only with more resources and staff but by cracking down on repeat
border crossers and those who overstay their visas. It did it in a
smart way. The goal of our friend from Louisiana isn't accomplished in
his bill, but it is in comprehensive immigration reform--the goal of
making sure those who are repeat border crossers and those who overstay
their visas are dealt with properly.
Our bill paved a tough but fair pathway to citizenship, shielding
law-abiding immigrants from deportation, fostering trust with law
enforcement, and exposing the criminals in their communities who would
rather live in the shadows.
Our bill was a bipartisan compromise. There is no compromise here. I
daresay many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, when they
look at provisions in this bill, do not like them. This is a show
vote--a vote, as my Republican colleague from Nevada said, to help
someone in his quest for political office.
There are so many vitally important policy debates we could be
turning to today. Instead, the Senate Republican leadership insists on
leading us into this dark, divisive place for nothing more than
political theater. Think of the urgent bipartisan issues we should be
working on, including the debt ceiling. We are about to default because
of the shenanigans going on on the other side. The Perkins Loan Program
so that kids can go to college; the land and water conservation
programs are expiring. The highway bill--we don't have a highway bill,
yet we are doing this. And if we don't take action by the end of the
year, millions of seniors will see a 52-percent increase in their
Medicare bill. How many Americans would want us to do that and not the
divisive show vote that has no chance of passing?

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. Just as importantly, I beg
my colleagues to join us on this side of the aisle in turning to a
serious debate on comprehensive immigration reform--something they have
so far refused to do.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
The Senator is advised that the Senate is under an order to recess at
this time.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
recognized for such time as I may consume and that Senator Hirono be
recognized following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on S. 2146, the Stop
Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act, which the Senate will
vote on shortly and which our colleagues have been speaking about.
First, I want to recognize and thank my colleagues for joining in
this effort--Senator Vitter, Senator Grassley, Senator Cruz, and
Senator Johnson--and introducing this very important bill. I can't
believe the way it is being mischaracterized, and I will try to address
some of those mischaracterizations.
Let's be clear. This bill is about keeping our communities safe from
violent crime. That is what it is about. It is necessary because of the
sanctuary cities that we have across America.
This is not a manufactured problem. This is a very real problem.
There is one father who knows about it all too well. Jim Steinle was
walking arm in arm with his daughter on a pier in San Francisco.
Suddenly a gunman leaps out, opens fire, and hits Kate. She falls into
her father's arms and pleads, ``Help me, dad,'' while she bleeds to
death.
What is so outrageous about this, among other things, is that the
shooter never should have been on the pier that day, in the first
place. He was an illegal immigrant who had been convicted of seven
felonies. He had been deported

[[Page S7321]]

five times, and there he is on the San Francisco pier, shooting and
killing an innocent woman. It is more outrageous than that. Just 3
months earlier, the Department of Homeland Security had asked the San
Francisco Police Department, when they had picked up this man, to hold
him until DHS officials could come and get him. They had made that
specific request when this man was in the custody of the San Francisco
Police Department, but San Francisco refused to cooperate. Knowing that
DHS wanted them to hold this man for a short period of time until their
agents could get there and take him into custody, having had that
request from DHS, San Francisco said no, and they released him so he
could then go out and commit a murder.
Why in the world would they release a man such as this when DHS has
asked them to hold him? It is because San Francisco is a sanctuary
city. What that means is that it is the policy of the city of San
Francisco--having commanded their local law enforcement, their police
department--to not cooperate with Federal officials seeking to
prosecute immigration issues. Even when they want to cooperate, they
are forbidden from cooperating. Think about how absurd this is.
If Federal officials had called the San Francisco Police Department
about any other kind of crime--larceny, burglary, a trademark
violation--they would have been happy to cooperate. They would have
cooperated, in fact. But because the crime was related to illegal
immigration, the San Francisco Police Department's hands were tied. The
police were forced to release the man who would then go on and kill
Kate Steinle. As a father of three young children, I can't even begin
to think about the pain that the Steinles just went through, and what
is so maddening is that it was entirely unnecessary.
Sadly, this is not the only case, as you know. According to the
Department of Homeland Security, during an 8-month period last year,
sanctuary jurisdictions--cities and counties that have adopted this
policy of noncooperation--have released over 8,000 illegal immigrants
they had in their custody, and 1,800 of these were later arrested for
criminal acts. This includes two cities that refused to hold
individuals who had been arrested for child sexual abuse. In both cases
the individuals were later arrested for sexually assaulting young
children. This is how outrageous this has become.
For the record, let me make it clear that I completely understand
that the vast majority of immigrants would not commit these crimes.
That is not what this is about. But the truth of the matter is that any
large group of individuals is going to have a certain number of
criminals within it. Of the 11 million people who are here illegally,
some are inevitably violent criminals.
The Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act provides a
solution to this in three parts. First, under our legislation sanctuary
jurisdictions will lose certain Federal funds. If a city or county or
municipality decides they will declare or forbid their law enforcement
officials from cooperating and even sharing information with Federal
Department of Homeland Security officials, they will lose some Federal
funding.
Second, this legislation includes Kate's Law. This provides for a
mandatory minimum 5-year sentence for a person who reenters the United
States illegally after having been convicted of an aggravated felony or
having been convicted twice before of illegal reentry.
Finally, there is the third part of this legislation. Across America
dozens of municipalities that had been cooperating with Federal
immigration officials have been forced to become sanctuary communities
or counties because several Federal courts have held that local law
enforcement may not cooperate when DHS asks them to hold an illegal
immigrant. They maintain that there is not the statutory authority for
local law enforcement to do so. Therefore, if the local police were to
cooperate, as they should, they would be liable for damages, and this
would apply even to dangerous criminal cases. We solve that problem by
making it clear that when local law enforcement is acting in a fashion
consistent with what DHS is requesting--what DHS has the authority to
do themselves--then there would be no such legal liability.
Some of my Democratic colleagues have said that we don't need this
legislation and that all we need is greater cooperation between Federal
and local law enforcement. Well, that is absolutely factually
incorrect. It is not possible to have the level of cooperation that we
need to have because of these court decisions, because the court
decisions effectively are precluding the kind of cooperation that we
need. That is why Congress needs to act.
We need to make it clear that local law enforcement can in fact hold
somebody that the Department of Homeland Security needs to have held,
just as the Department of Homeland Security has that authority
themselves. The Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act
provides a valid solution. It confirms that local law enforcement
officers are allowed to cooperate when Federal officials ask them to
hold illegal immigrants.
It is carefully drafted to protect individual liberties. If an
individual's civil liberties or constitutional rights are violated,
than that individual can still file suit and can still seek a remedy,
and that is as it should be. But this legislation to stop sanctuary
policies act really should have very broad bipartisan support.
Let's keep in mind the people we are talking about here. As a
practical matter, the only cases in which this applies is that small
subset of illegal immigrants who even the Obama administration wishes
to hold for deportation--only that small subset of people that the
Obama administration believes is dangerous enough to warrant removal.
Really, we can't even have local law enforcement officials cooperate
under those circumstances?
President Obama's own Secretary of Homeland Security has declared
that sanctuary cities are ``not acceptable.'' He has described them as
``counterproductive to public safety.'' There is no real basis for
voting no on this.
Opponents have turned to misrepresenting this in many ways, but the
facts are overwhelming.
There are three national law enforcement groups that have written a
powerful letter addressing some of the misrepresentations that have
been made about this bill. They have reaffirmed their support for this
bill. They include the National Sheriffs' Association, the National
Association of Police Organizations, and the Federal Law Enforcement
Officers Association.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have their letter printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

October 20, 2015.
Senator David Vitter,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC.
Chairman Chuck Grassley,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC.
Senator Ron Johnson,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC.
Senator Pat Toomey,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC.
Senator Ted Cruz,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Vitter, Toomey, Grassley, Cruz, and Johnson:
On behalf of the National Sheriffs' Association, the National
Association of Police Organizations, and the Federal Law
Enforcement Officers Association and the local, state, and
federal law enforcement officers we represent, we write to
reiterate out support for the Stop Sanctuary Policies and
Protect Americans Act (S.2146) and to correct some
misrepresentations regarding the Act.
As the law enforcement officers on the front lines working
to protect our communities, we know firsthand the challenges
facing police officers. We know when a bill makes our jobs
more difficult and when a bill makes our jobs easier.
We have been surprised to hear some misrepresent this bill
and its effects on law enforcement.
For example, some have claimed that the Stop Sanctuary
Policies Act will ``requir[e] state and local law enforcement
to carry out the federal government's immigration enforcement
responsibilities,'' and thus ``the federal government would
be substituting its judgment for the judgment of state and
local law enforcement agencies.'' Nothing in the Stop
Sanctuary Policies Act requires local law enforcement ``to
carry out federal immigration responsibilities.'' Removing
illegal immigrants remains the exclusive province of the
federal government. The bill simply withholds certain federal
funds from jurisdictions that prohibit their local law
enforcement officers from cooperating with

[[Page S7322]]

federal officials in the limited circumstance of honoring an
immigration detainer. It is politicians in sanctuary
jurisdictions who, by tying the hands of local law
enforcement, are ``substituting [their] judgment for the
judgment of state and local law enforcement.''
Others have resorted to scare tactics, warning that that
S.2146 will lead to the deportation of those who report
crimes to law enforcement. This is simply false. The bill
provides that if a jurisdiction has a policy that it will not
inquire about the immigration status of crime victims or
witnesses, the jurisdiction will not be deemed a sanctuary
jurisdiction and will not lose any federal funds.
To be clear: We believe the Stop Sanctuary Policies Act
will make America safer, enhance the ability of police to
protect and serve, and provide greater flexibility for law
enforcement officers at every level--federal, state, and
local.
We also write to address those Members of Congress who
insist that the Stop Sanctuary Policies Act is not needed;
instead, Congress should ``encourage'' local officers to
cooperate with federal officials. This ignores one crucial
fact: Across America, federal courts have issued decisions
forbidding local officers from cooperating with federal
requests to hold an illegal immigrant. These decisions
provide that local law enforcement and municipalities may be
sued if they cooperate with federal officials to detain
dangerous criminals. Under these decisions, even if a federal
official would have had the authority to hold the individual,
local law enforcement can still be sued.
Too often, local law enforcement officers are left with a
terrible choice: Either release an individual who has been
convicted of or arrested for violent crimes, or be sued and
lose funds that are needed to protect our communities. As a
result of these lawsuits, scores of cities and counties
across America have become sanctuary jurisdictions.
The Stop Sanctuary Policies Act provides a solution. The
bill confirms that local law enforcement may cooperate with
federal requests to hold an illegal immigrant. The bill
provides that when local officers comply with such requests,
they are delegated the same powers to hold an illegal
immigrant as a DHS official would have. If the detention
would have been legal if carried out by the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), then under S.2146 it is still legal;
it does not become a crime simply because it is a local
sheriff acting instead of a DHS official.
This provision was carefully drafted to protect individual
liberties. It preserves an individual's ability to sue for a
violation of a constitutional or civil rights, regardless of
whether the violation was the result of negligence or was
purposeful. Under S.2146, if there was no basis to detain the
individual--DHS issued the request for someone in the U.S.
legally--the individual may still sue for a violation of
rights. The difference is that the party responsible for the
error, the federal government, is liable; not a local police
officer or jailer acting in good faith. If a local law
enforcement officer acts improperly--mistreating an
individual or continuing to hold an individual after federal
officials issue a release order--the individual may sue, with
the local officer liable for all costs and judgments.
Contrary to the assertions of the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU)--the party that has orchestrated these lawsuits
against local law enforcement officers--the Stop Sanctuary
Policies Act is fully consistent with the Fourth Amendment.
In a letter to Congress, the ACLU states, ``The Fourth
Amendment provides that the government cannot hold anyone in
jail without getting a warrant or the approval of a judge.''
The fact is that the Constitution requires probable cause to
detain an individual, which can be established by a judicial
warrant issued before the arrest or by a demonstration of
probable cause after the arrest. Otherwise police could never
arrest someone whom they see committing a crime. The Stop
Sanctuary Policies Act does not alter the requirement for
probable cause. To the contrary, S.2146 explicitly preserves
an individual's ability to sue if he or she is held without
probable cause or has suffered any other violation of a
constitutional right.
The ACLU also tries scare tactics. It claims that the Stop
Sanctuary Policies Act includes ``provisions requiring DHS to
absorb all liability in lawsuits brought by individuals
unlawfully detained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.''
This is false. If a lawsuit alleges that a local officer
knowingly violated Fourth Amendment or other constitutional
rights, then under S.2146, the individual officer will bear
all liability--not the federal government. For some lawsuits,
the U.S. will be substituted as defendant--specifically,
suits alleging that that the immigration detainer should not
have been issued. But such a claim could already be brought
against the U.S. under existing law; thus, S.2146 does not
create a new source of liability for the federal government.
S.2146 simply provides that if the federal government made
the error, the federal government should be the defendant.
We, the law enforcement officers of America, are on the
front lines day after day. We know the challenges of
apprehending criminals and the difficulties of working with
crime victims and witnesses--especially those who may be
fearful of local and federal authorities. Based on our
collective knowledge and experience, we strongly support the
Stop Sanctuary Policies Act (S.2146) and urge the Senate to
pass this important legislation.
Sincerely,
National Sheriffs' Association.
National Association of Police Organizations.
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, let me finish by reminding my colleagues
that the vote we are about to have is not actually a vote on this bill
in its current form. If Members object to a provision in it or they
want to add a provision in it, then, by all means, let's vote to get on
the bill. Let's open up debate, and we will have amendments, we will
have a discussion, and we will have a debate. They are free to attempt
to improve this bill and modify this bill, as they see fit.
This vote today is not a final passage vote. It is a vote on whether
the issue of sanctuary jurisdictions is important enough to merit the
Senate's consideration.
I was just shocked to hear one of our colleagues describe this bill
as a waste of time. Really, a waste of time? That is unbelievable. How
could the lives of Kate Steinle and the other victims who have been
lost because of this ridiculous policy be a waste of the Senate's time
when the courts are precluding the cooperation between local and
Federal law enforcement officials because we have not acted? There is a
simple solution. It starts with passing a motion to proceed so we can
get on this bill and hopefully complete it successfully. I think the
lives of Kate Steinle and the other victims are not a waste of time. I
think we should be addressing this issue. We should be addressing it
today.
I urge my colleagues to vote aye so that we can begin considering
this very important--and it should be broadly supported--bipartisan
piece of legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I would like to urge my colleagues to
oppose S. 2146, the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act.
Hundreds of cities and local jurisdictions across our country have
financial, constitutional, and public safety concerns with using scarce
local tax dollars to hold immigrants in jail when they otherwise would
be entitled to release under the law. These cities and towns are being
called sanctuary cities because they have made a local and fact-based
choice to keep their communities safe rather than serve as an arm of
immigration enforcement.
This bill would create new criminal penalties for undocumented
immigrants and make life even harder for them, most of whom are honest,
hard-working people, not criminals. The bill also takes severe steps to
penalize these sanctuary cities by stripping them of critical community
block grants and Federal homeland security and law enforcement funding.
While this bill purports to protect our communities, it is strongly
opposed by law enforcement, victims' advocates, and local and State
government leaders.
Why do they oppose this bill?
Demonizing our immigrant communities and using them as scapegoats
does not make America safer. Decades of research shows the following:
that immigrants as a group are not a threat to public safety, that
immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes than the rest of
Americans, and that the higher rates of immigration are associated with
lower rates of violent crime.
Law enforcement is clear. This bill would limit their ability to keep
all people in their communities safe. Good community policy requires
collaboration and trust. Our law enforcement officials want to spend
their time going after people who truly pose a threat to our safety.
This bill would have us spend limited resources pursuing hardworking
though undocumented members of their communities with no criminal
history. Community law enforcement should not be coerced, because that
is what this bill would require. It is a requirement. Community law
enforcement should not be coerced into serving as an arm of Federal
Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That is what this bill does.
Nobody is talking about voluntary collaboration and support for Federal
Government

[[Page S7323]]

enforcement of laws. Throughout this Congress, my Republican colleagues
often rail against the Federal Government telling State and local
governments what to do, but now when it comes to something as important
as public safety and law enforcement, it is suddenly OK to second guess
State and local law enforcement?

Instead of turning hard-working immigrants into bogeymen, we should
be focusing on real solutions for violent crime in our communities. If
my colleagues who support this bill are serious about addressing
violence in America, then they should come to the table to talk about
how we can strengthen our laws to keep guns out of the hands of
criminals and the mentally ill.
I have been saying, along with many of my colleagues for over a year
now, if my Republican colleagues want to discuss immigration reform, we
welcome that debate. Everyone agrees our immigration system is broken
and needs reform. It has been 28 months since the Senate passed a
comprehensive immigration bill that had strong bipartisan support.
Even though it was not perfect from my perspective, we nonetheless
worked together to come up with a compromise bill, but House
Republicans ducked the issue and refused to take up the immigration
reform bill. The Senate comprehensive immigration bill would have
reduced the Federal deficit by $1 trillion in just two decades because
of the broad economic benefits immigration reform granted.
It would have protected and united families, strengthened our border
security, improved our economy, and encouraged job creation in our
country. The Senate's bill would have gotten millions of people out of
the shadows, requiring them to pass criminal background checks and earn
their path to citizenship. It would have let immigration enforcement
officials focus on true security threats to our country.
The Senate's immigration bill included $46 billion in new resources
to help our Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.
Of this amount, roughly $30 billion was added to the bill to further
secure our borders, but that is not enough for some Republicans.
Apparently, some will not be happy until we literally round up every
undocumented immigrant--some 11 million of them in our country--and
deport them, which would be catastrophic to our economy, not to mention
impossible to do. The current sanctuary cities debate is not the first
time some have tried to use myths about immigrants to scare Americans.
This rhetoric could not be further from the truth about immigrants.
I urge my colleagues to oppose these scare tactics and to vote no on
the motion to proceed to S. 2146.
I yield the floor.

____________________